From Part II , you could easily be able to appreciate the discontentment I have had since my conversion to Evangelical denomination, for almost more than a decade. I took ample time to make sure that I am not blindly discrediting the denomination or not yet again seeking another conversion in search of better spiritual experiences. Rather, I tried to show you a balanced view of how all religions have their own version of imperfections where Evangelicalism is not exceptional.  I also complained that the problem many people don’t want to join Christianity or left it because of man-made doctrines and dogmas, not because of Jesus or His teachings.

I presume that, part of the problem why we see mushroomed doctrines and dogmas that have been burdening the people of God so heavily is structural. There is no check and balance. No accountability! Unlike in other denominations such as Catholics and Orthodox, individual ministry has the freedom to adopt its own doctrine and dogma. I am not blaming the organizational flexibility we Evangelicals are enjoying because this same flexibility allowed many ministries to reach out and preach the Good News to the world without bureaucratic hindrances.

Of course, there are many responsible servants of God who first passed through the learning process by going to Christian colleges and universities before they try to interpret scriptures to come up their own version of new dogmas and doctrines. I believe that, even if someone alleges that he had heard from God to serve, he should have taken adequate time to go to school (or seat down to make intensive research and thinking), learn how to make proper exegetical analysis to interpret scriptures, study the history of how his denomination came to picture, and the servants of God who have come before him, and many more.

Since many bypass this stage of wilderness/preparation/study, they undermine the big picture, try to act as if they are the Body, and institute their new revelations by overriding past achievements of many men and women of God. I am not despising anyone here or acting disrespectful. I am clear about one thing- God had been sending His servants throughout our history with unique insights to resolve crises and challenges. We call these interventions revivals. Since revivals are the results of God’s intervention, I am respectful and appreciative of them. I honor and exalt these leaders who obeyed God to carry out those revivals that brought lots of healings, freedom, and fulfillment into the Body of Christ.

What I am not comfortable is when someone misunderstands the continuity of God’s refining work to edify, prune, and lift the state of His people; when someone overrides preceding revelations and suggests damping the fruits of previous revivals, and discrediting age-old wisdoms and principles. The trouble is when one thinks that he knows God more than past great men and women of God and/or when he thinks that he has already knew what he should know about God and His agendas; and most of all, when that person becomes judgmental and tries to impose his new discoveries on everyone as commandments.

I have difficulty with this notion. First, God is in the business of building the Body of Christ where each part plays important role. However, no one part or person is indispensible in the expense of the rest. Second, God has never been a God who starts new foundation; He builds on what had been already there. Before He set His Hand to initiate the creation process, He had seen the end and had the big picture in His mind. The New covenant is the continuity of the Old covenant. Even if Jesus had the authenticity to create His own new laws and burden people with heavy dogmas and doctrines, and act as if no one right had come before Him as a prophet, He said that I didn’t come to abolish the Prophets and laws; rather, to reinforce them. What a humble personality?!

While writing this part, I remembered the parable of the blind men and the elephant they touched to learn what it is like. Each of these blind men touched a different part of the elephant such as the side or the leg or the tail or the tusk. They then compared their observations to learn that none of their notes completely agree. Surprisingly, none of them called that creature Elephant based on their partial touch of his parts! This is a popular story used as a parable concerning the fact that people have a tendency to know only a tiny segment of truth and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas and doctrines from which they claim that their version is the right one.
 
It is beyond the scope of this commentary to explain doctrines and traditions within the Evangelical denomination, I consider unproductive, unscriptural, and most importantly in contrary to the original intend and belief of the very founders of the faith. I am here to share with you one of them. Of course, I am not here acting like an expert or a man who knows the full extent of the problem. I am also here raising a question than suggesting any final resolution. I am not here to teach you anything new but rather provoking you to think and reach your own conclusion while reading my sacred pilgrimage to understand why there is a huge gap between us- the modern Evangelicals, and the founding fathers of this faith.

Remain tuned for Part IV...